There's a better word for what I am: an apatheist.
It's a neologism that fuses "apathy" and "theism." It means someone who has absolutely no interest in the question of a god's (or gods') existence, and is just as uninterested in telling anyone else what to believe.

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

I may be the only known blogger who doesn't have a strong opinion on the TSA's "enhanced" screening. Really, I'm rather ambivalent. Honestly, I have no plans to fly anywhere anytime soon. So if this post ends up having a rather pointless point, well, so be it.

I'm not feeling the 'outrage' about the 'invasion of privacy'. This is likely due to the fact that I'm not a 'modest' person. I'm comfortable with the naked human body in all its forms. The scanner shows what I look like naked? OK, but I doubt that you'll find it all that interesting. And that's true for most of the rest of the population; more of us look "average" than are candidates for modeling careers. Although I might be tempted to go Samuel Wolanyk on them.

There is the concern about radiation exposure, which is understandable. So instead you have the option of the "pat down" groping, which sounds rather invasive. Except that it's standard procedure at many concerts and sporting events (admitted that they're searching for alcohol or weapons rather than explosives), and I haven't heard any screams of protest about that. And, as I said in my previous post, some folks will enjoy getting the rare fondle.

What is more troublesome is that I seriously doubt the effectiveness of these security measure. Our procedures are purely reactive. Shoes came off after Richard Reid. Liquids became restricted after the chemical explosives plot was foiled. Now we are reacting after the 'underwear bomber' tried to blow up his crotch. And the main thing that all three plots had in common? All three were on flights that originated outside the United States. So instead of closing the barn door after the horse has left, we're locking up a barn that never had a horse.

I also have doubts about the competence of the screenings, based on my own most recent experience with air travel last month. Due to multiple snafu's, I got to go through the exact same screening three times in a 24 hour period. Admitted that it was the traditional metal detector rather than the new full body scanners, but here's the point: I have two large metal plates in my right shoulder which were present for all three screenings. The results? One time the machine went off, the next it didn't, and the third time it couldn't quite decide. Flagstaff's Pulliam Airport is tiny, and only has one metal detector, and it was the same TSAscreener all three times (who was very polite and amused by our third visit) so the results should have been consistent. I don't know much about the technical side of the new scanners, but given that the country bought them from lobbyist and former homeland security director Michael Chertoff, who's much more 'corrupt' than 'competent', I'm skeptical. And there's the human element. The screeners will be looking at thousands of people a day, which will get rather boring fairly quickly. How much attention will they be paying? They're pretty ordinary folks (at least the ones I've met), not highly paid super humans.

In reality these screening procedures are merely TSA's attempt to appear to be 'doing something' to prevent terrorism. It's an elaborate theater production, because 'doing nothing' is politically unacceptable. Of course, the screenings are also politically unacceptable. Terrorists will continue to terrorize regardless of our security procedures. It's what they do. And the administration will be criticized regardless of their actions or results. That is America today.

As a bonus, Juan Cole explains. Mr. Cole is one of the most brilliant people, always well worth reading, and here he explains the threat of PETN that the screenings are intended to prevent.